DOCSLIB.ORG

DI CP22 F7 Ocrcombined Withcitations Updated.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DI CP22 F7 Ocrcombined Withcitations Updated.Pdf TO: INITIAL DATE prepare reply comment & advice_______ see me________ approval_________________ as requested investigate_____________ as promised note & return P. C.__________ first name______________ file reply for signature of REMARKS: FROM: DATE: March 10, 1969 AGENDA: Maryland Campaign Planning Meeting I. Opening remarks by Chairman Harris II. Assessment by Senator Tydings of 1970 Election prospects III. Discussion of projects and programs that need to be undertaken now for 1970 race IV. Steps that need to be taken to provide for the most effective and coordinated cam- paign in Maryland -- involvement of the party, Governor, Congressional campaigns March 10, 1969 Invited to Maryland Campaign Planning Meeting: Sen. Joseph Tydings Ken Gray AA to Senator Tydings Sen. Daniel Inouye, Chairman Senate Democratic Campaign Committee Nordy Hoffman Senate Democratic Campaign Committee Cong. Ed Edmondson House Campaign Committee Ken Harding House Campaign Committee Al Barkan & Mary Zon COPE William Dodds UAW Frank McGrath COPE Area Director Charles Della, Pres. State AFL-CIO Culver Windsor COPE Director Andy Lewis J. C. Turner, Pres. DC-Md. Central Labor Union Martin Bond DC-Md. Central Labor Union COPE -2- Nick Fornaro, Pres. Baltimore Central Labor Union Thomas Moran James O'Brien United Steel Workers Evelyn Dubrow Garment Workers Bill DuChessi Textile Workers Democratic National Committee: Geri Joseph Bill Welsh Vick French • George Bristol Al Spivak WASHINGTON, WYOMING, McGEE, SOUTH DAKOTA, MISSOURI, ICHORD, ILLINOIS, DAWSON, KENTUCKY, PERKINS, WEST VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW YORK, CELLER, MAGNUSON, Senate Senate Post Office and McGOVERN, Senate House Internal Security House Committee on House Education and RANDOLPH, Senate Pub- MORGAN, House Foreign House Judiciary Commerce Committee, Civil Service Committee, Select Committee on Committee, Houston, Government Operations, Labor Committee, lic Works Committee, Affairs Committee, Committee, Brooklyn, Seattle, Wash.: 557,087 Laramie, Wyo.: 17,520 Nutrition and Human Mo.: 1,660 pop. Mo.: Chicago, III.: 3,550,404 Hindman, Ky.: Under Elkins, W.Va.: 8,307 Fredericktown, Pa.: N.Y.: 2,627,319 pop. pop. Wash.: 2,853,214 pop. Wyo.: 330,066 pop. Needs, Mitchell, S.O.: 4,319,813 pop. pop. III.: 10,081,158 2,500 pop. Ky.: pop. W.Va.: 1,860,421 Under 2,500 pop. N.Y.: 16,782,304 pop.; JACKSON, Senate 12,555 pop. S.D.: pop.; PRICE, House 3,038,156 pop. pop.; STAGGERS, House Pa.: 11,319,366 pop. pop.; DULSKI, House Interior and Insular 680,514 pop. Committee on Standards Interstate and Foreign Post Office and Civil Affairs Committee, V of Official Conduct, Commerce Committee, Service Committee, Everett, Wash.: East St. Louis, III.: Keyser, W.Va.: 7,041 Buffalo. N.Y.: 81,712 pop. 532,759 pop. 40,304 pop. States with Congressional ----------------------- Committee Chairmen, Red boxes are Senate chairmen, blue boxes are House chairmen, and states i cross-checks have NEVADA, BIBLE, Senate Select Small Business House and Senate chairmen Committee, Reno, Nev.: 51,470 pop., Nev.: ALASKA 285,278 pop. NEW JERSEY, WILLIAMS, Special Senate Committee on Aging, Westfield, CALIFORNIA, MILLER, N.J.: 31,447 pop. House Committee on N.J.: 6,066,782 pop. Science and Astronau- tics, Alameda, Calif.: 63,855 pop. Calif.: 15,717,204 pop.; HOLIFIELD, Joint Atomic Energy Committee, Montebello, Calif.: 40,613 pop. MARYLAND, TYDINGS, Senate Committee on District of Columbia, Havre de COLORADO, ASPINALL, Grace, Md.: 8,510 pop. Md.: 3,100,689 House Committee on pop.; FRIEDEL, House Administration Interior and Insular Committee, Baltimore, Md.: 939,024 Affairs, Palisade, Colo.: pop.; GARMATZ, House Merchant Marine Under 2,500 pop. Colo.: and Fisheries Committee, Baltimore, 1,753,947 pop. Md.: 939,024 pop.; FALLON, House Public Works Committee, Baltimore, Md.: 939,024 pop. NEW MEXICO, ANDERSON, Senate Aeronautical and Space The population figures shown are based on the Sciences Committee, Albuquerque, N.M.: 1960 census. The town or city listed below 201,189 pop. N.M.: each chairman's name is his hometown. When 951,023 pop. there is more than one chairman from a state, the state's population is listed only once— under the first chairman's name. TEXAS, YARBOROUGH, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, The map of the United States is distorted to reflect the Austin, Tex.: 186,545 size of the states in terms of pop. Tex.: 9,579,677 population based on the pop.; POAGE, House 1960 census. Agriculture Committee, ARKANSAS, FULBRIGHT, Waco, Tex.: 97,808 pop.; Senate Foreign Relations MISSISSIPPI, STENNIS, MAHON, House Appro- Committee, Fayette- Senate Armed Services priations Committee, ville, Ark.: 26,279 pop. Committee, De Kalb, SOUTH CAROLINA, Lubbock, Tex.: 128,691 Ark.: 1,786,272 pop.; Miss.: Under 2,500 pop. RIVERS, House Armed pop.; PATMAN, House McCLELLAN, Senate LOUISIANA, ELLENDER, Miss.: 2,178,141 pop.; Services Committee, Banking and Currency Government Operations Senate Committee on EASTLAND, Senate Judi- Charleston, S.C.: NORTH CAROLINA, Committee, Texarkana, Committee, Camden, Agriculture, Houma, La.: ciary Committee, Dodds- 75.940 pop. S.C.: TENNESSEE, EVINS, JORDAN, Senate Rules Tex.: 30,218 pop.; Ark.: 14,604 pop.; 4,665 pop. La.: ville, Miss.: Under 2,500 ALABAMA, SPARKMAN, GEORGIA, RUSSELL, 2,382.594 pop.; House Select Com- and Administration TEAGUE, House Com- MILLS, House Ways and 3,257,022 pop.; LONG, pop.; COLMER, House Senate Banking and Senate Appropriations McMILLAN. House Com- mittee on Small Committee, Saxa- mittee on Veterans’ Means Committee, Senate Finance Com- Rules Committee, Currency Committee, Committee, Winder, Ca.: mittee on the District Business, Smithville, pahaw, N.C.: Under Affairs, College Station, Kensett, Ark.: Under mittee, Shreveport, La.: Pascagoula, Miss.: Huntsville, Ala.: 123,519 5,555 pop. Ga.: of Columbia, Florence, Tenn.: 2,348 pop. 2,500 pop. N.C.: pop. Ala.: 3,266,740 pop- 3,943,116 pop. Tex.: 11,396 pop. 2,500 pop. 160,535 pop. 17,155 pop. S.C.; 24,722 pop. Tenn.: 3,567,089 pop. 4,556,155 pop. ANALYSIS OF KEY SENATORIAL CONTESTS The. 1970 Senatorial elections provide the Democrats with the strongest challenge to their control of the Senate since 1954. A net gain of seven Senatorial seats would provide the Republicans with majority leadership of the Senate- According to the Republican National Committee documents which we have seen, there are twelve Senatorial seats which the Republicans are aiming to capture- These seats are in the following states: Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, ' "North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming- Using this information, I thought it would be significant to see how much things have changed over the last six years in these twelve states. Generally, we all know much that has happened since the 1964 elections in political terms, but in terms of population characteristics as well as specific voting behavior patterns, these twelve states present a formidable challenge for the Democrats to control. In a majority of these twelve states, the suburban population has grown by at least 25 per cent and in some cases up to 50 per cent. For the first time in our nation’s history, more people live in the suburbs than in the central city. These voters who are generally homeowners dependent on an income shrunk by inflation, have a new set of values which differ from those that they had as the big-city dwellers. They are divorced from the center city political organizations and tend to have a more Independent-Republican orientation. ....... The median family income is now around $9,300. One third of the voters in these twelve states have personal disposable income in excess of $10,000. For this -2- reason, these people will tend to look at liberal Democrats as spenders. If the incumbent Senators are unable to put the blame for inflation and taxes on the Republican Administration, they will find a skeptical electorate., In 1968, law and order was the second biggest issue., In 1970, law and order appears to remain a major issue confronting all candidates. With the exceptions of Wyoming, Tennessee, North Dakota, and Indiana, the total crime index in the remaining eight G. O. P. target states is high. This fact puts another obstacle in the way of the Democratic incumbents who are certain to be targets of Republican criticism. According to the Gallup Poll, party affiliation in the past five years has become decidedly more Independent and less Democratic, Dem. Rep. Ind. 1964 53 25 22 ! 1969 42 28 30 In these twelve states there are large numbers of Democrats becoming Independents, The traditional appeals to vote Democratic will not be sufficient in 1970. -3- Politically, the following things have happened in these twelve states over the last decade: PRESIDENTIAL: Nation 12 GOP Target States Kennedy 1960 50. 1 52. 1 Johnson 1964 61.0 60.8 Humphrey 1968 42.7 39.9 Wallace 1968 13.5 15.5 In 1960, President Kennedy ran a far stronger race in these states than he did nationwide. Four years later, President Johnson carried all twelve states nearly matching his national popular vote of 61 per cent. In the 1968 Presidential election, Vice President Humphrey won only two of the twelve states, and received almost 3 per cent less than he did nationally. In the first eight years of the sixties, the Democratic Presidential standard-bearer has dropped a total of 5 per cent from his position relative to his national standing. CONGRESSIONAL: Total Congressional Seats-12 GOP Target States Democrats Republicans 1964 76 29 1968 59 49 Net Change -17 +20 With the exception of Tennessee and Nevada, the remaining ten states have experienced a loss in Democratic Congressional representation. In 1964, the Democrats had five Congressmen for -4- every two Republicans in the target states; today the margin has shrunk to six Democrats to five Republicans. This is another indication of eroding Democratic strength in the key states.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates the Politics and Process of Utah’S Unique Convention and Primary System
    Research Report Report Number 704, November 2011 Nominating Candidates The Politics and Process of Utah’s Unique Convention and Primary System HIGHLIGHTS For most of its history, Utah has used a convention- g Utah is one of only seven states that still uses a primary system to nominate candidates for elected office. convention, and the only one that allows political parties to preclude a primary election for major In the spring of election years, citizens in small caucus offices if candidates receive enough delegate votes. g Utah adopted a direct primary in 1937, a system meetings held throughout the state elect delegates to which lasted 10 years. represent them at county and state conventions. County g In 1947, the Legislature re-established a caucus- convention system. If a candidate obtained 70% or conventions nominate candidates for races solely within more of the delegates’ votes in the convention, he or she was declared the nominee without a primary. the county boundaries, while the state convention is used g In the 1990s, the Legislature granted more power to the parties to manage their conventions. In 1996, to nominate candidates for statewide offices or those the 70% threshold to avoid a primary was lowered to 60% by the Democratic Party. The Republican that serve districts that span multiple counties. At these Party made the same change in 1999. conventions, delegates nominate candidates to compete g Utah’s historically high voter turnout rates have consistently declined in recent decades. In 1960, for their party’s nomination in the primary election, or, 78.3% of the voting age population voted in the general election.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 American Express Political Contributions
    American Express Company Semi-Annual Political Contributions Report July-December 2016 American Express participates in the political process through the American Express Company Political Action Committee (AXP PAC) and through corporate political contributions in those jurisdictions where it is permissible to do so. AXP PAC is supported entirely through voluntary contributions from those who are eligible. We do not spend corporate funds directly on electioneering communications, and our PAC does not contribute to presidential campaigns. In this report, which is updated semi-annually and posted on our company website, we provide information about all political contributions made through our PAC or with corporate funds to political candidates, parties and committees. We also disclose contributions to other political entities organized and operating under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code; independent political expenditures; dues used for political purposes by trade associations that respond to our request, entities organized under section 501(c) 4 of the Code, and other tax exempt organizations (that receive in excess of $50,000 during the calendar year from the Company); and payments made to influence the outcome of ballot measures as defined under Subsection 162(e)(1)(B) of the Code. In addition, we include a list of principal U.S. trade and industry associations to which we have paid annual dues of $50,000 or more in the most recent fiscal year and the portion of our dues or payments made that are used for lobbying purposes under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. For more information about our Company and its Political Activity Policy, please visit http://about.americanexpress.com/news/pap.aspx.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Before BCRA: Soft Money at the State Level
    L I F E B E F O R E B C R A S O F T M O N E Y A T T H E S T A T E L E V E L I N T H E 2 0 0 0 & 2 0 0 2 E L E C T I O N C Y C L E S By D E N I S E B A R B E R T H E I N S T I T U T E O N M O N E Y I N S T A T E P O L I T I C S D E C . 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 1 833 NORTH MAIN, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S State Parties: Looking for New Dance Partners ........................................3 Summary of Findings...............................................................................5 State-by-State Rankings ...........................................................................7 Who Gives to State Party Committees? ....................................................9 National Committees: State Party Sugar Daddies ................................... 10 Patterns in Giving....................................................................... 11 Transfers and Trading................................................................. 11 Reporting Discrepancies ............................................................. 13 Top Individual Contributors ................................................................... 14 Interstate Trading of Soft Money............................................................ 19 Top Industries ........................................................................................ 21 Tables ........................................................................................................ Table 1: Soft-Money Contributions, 2000 and 2002......................7 Table 2: Types of Contributors to State Party Committees ............9 Table 3: Soft Money from the National Committees ................... 10 Table 4: Top 25 Individual Contributors of Soft Money.............. 16 Table 5: Top 30 Industries Contributing to State Parties.............
    [Show full text]
  • CDP V. FEC (18-0888) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed July 13, 2018
    Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 14 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 43 U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE ) PRESIDENT, ) ) No. 18-888 (RDM) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ) Defendant, ) _______________________________________) PLAINTIFF COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS Dan Backer POLITICAL.LAW PLLC 441 N. Lee Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 210-5431 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Committee to Defend the President Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 14 Filed 07/13/18 Page 2 of 43 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................1 A. Federal Campaign Finance Law ...........................................................................1 1. Contribution Limits ...................................................................................1 2. Reporting Requirements ...........................................................................2 3. Joint Fundraising Committees ..................................................................2 4. Anticircumvention Provisions ..................................................................3 B. Administrative Complaint Process .......................................................................4 C. CDP’s Administrative Complaint .........................................................................6 D. CDP’s Challenge to the FEC’s Failure to Timely Adjudicate Its
    [Show full text]
  • Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010
    Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Party Amount State Organizations Utah Democratic Party D 1,000 Total $1,000 National Organizations Democratic Governors Association D 10,000 National Governors Association - 20,000 Republican Governors Association R 35,000 Western Governors Association - 5,000 Total $70,000 Other Organizations Accountability for Colorado D 750 Colorado Leadership Fund R 2,500 One Oklahoma Coalition - 5,000 Senate Majority Fund R 2,500 Total $10,750 State Contributions Alabama Rep. Jim Barton R 500 Rep. Paul Beckman R 500 Rep. James Buskey D 500 Rep. Spencer Collier R 500 Rep. Chad Fincher R 500 Sen. Rusty Glover R 500 Rep. Betty Carol Graham D 500 Rep. Ralph Howard D 500 Rep. Mike Hubbard R 500 Rep. Thomas Jackson D 500 Sen. Marc Keahy D 500 Rep. Richard Laird D 500 Sen. Del Marsh R 500 Rep. Jimmy Martin D 500 Rep. Barry Mask R 500 Sen. Wendell Mitchell D 500 Sen. Jim Preuitt R 500 Sen. Bobby Singleton D 500 Sen. Cam Ward R 500 Total $9,500 1 Williams Companies Corporate Contributions January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010 Georgia Lt. Governor Casey Cagle R 500 Sen. Bill Cowsert R 500 Rep. Katie Dempsey R 500 Sen. Bill Heath R 500 Sen. Emanuel Jones D 500 Rep. Jan Jones R 500 Rep. Chuck Martin R 500 Rep. Howard Mosby D 500 Rep. Larry O'Neal R 500 Rep. Don Parsons R 500 Rep. Alan Powell D 500 Rep. David Ralston R 1,000 Sen. Chip Rogers R 500 Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report Report Number 708, April 2012 the 2012 Utah Priorities Survey of Party Delegates and Voters
    Research Report Report Number 708, April 2012 The 2012 Utah Priorities Survey of Party Delegates and Voters HIGHLIGHTS As part of the 2012 Utah Priorities Project, Utah g While distinct differences remain between Foundation and the Hinckley Institute of Politics have state party delegates and voters, they are not as pronounced as in 2010. surveyed Utah voters and delegates to the major parties’ g The top policy priorities of Republican delegates focus on state’s rights, the economy, and reducing state conventions. This survey was conducted for the crime. These priorities are more in line with Republican voters than delegates were in 2010. first time in 2010, showing distinct differences between g The top policy priorities of Democratic delegates party delegates and voters, with delegates usually taking focus on education, healthcare, ethics, pollution, and the economy. These priorities are very more zealous positions than their parties’ voters. The similar to Democratic voters. g Republican congressional incumbents Rob Bishop 2012 survey also shows differences between voters and and Jason Chaffetz hold comfortable leads over their challengers and will almost certainly receive delegates, but those differences are not as pronounced as enough delegate votes to avoid a primary. in 2010. g Governor Herbert and U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch are close to the 60% delegate threshold to avoid This survey also shows that both Republican delegates and voters now have more moderate a primary, but the margin of error makes these views on several issues, such as global warming, abortion and public education. Additionally, convention races too close to call. this survey reveals that support for the Tea Party in Utah has declined significantly since g Regarding political ideology, 58% of Utahns 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • 1A United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Utah Republican Party and Utah Democratic Party V. SPENCER J. COX, in Hi
    1a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Utah Republican Party and Utah Democratic Party v. SPENCER J. COX, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Utah, Nos. 16-4091/16-4098 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00038-DN) Marcus Mumford, Mumford Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant. David P. Billings, Fabian VanCott, Salt Lake City, Utah (Peter W. Billings and Charles A. Stormont, Fabian VanCott, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Clemens A. Landau, Zimmerman Jones Booher, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff - Intervenor-Appellant. Tyler R. Green (Stanford E. Purser with him on the brief), Utah Attorney General’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellee. Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 2a EBEL, Circuit Judge. These appeals are only the most recent volley in the spate of litigation that has dogged the Utah Elections Amendments Act of 2014, commonly known as SB54, since it was signed into law in March 2014. At issue here, SB54 reorganized the process for qualifying for a primary ballot in Utah, most importantly by providing an alternative signature- gathering path to the primary election ballot for candidates who are unable or unwilling to gain approval from the central party nominating conventions. Prior to the passage of SB54, the Utah Republican Party (“URP”) selected its candidates for primary elections exclusively through its state nominating convention, and it would prefer to continue to do so. In this litigation, the URP sued Utah Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox in his official capacity (“the State”)1, alleging that two aspects of SB54 violate the URP’s freedom of association under the First Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • 05357 HIP Newsltr Press.Indd
    PARTICIPATION WINTER 2005 40th Anniversary for Hinckley Institute of Politics The Hinckley Institute of Politics will celebrate IN THIS ISSUE its 40th anniversary and announce the new director of the Hinckley Institute at an event in September. Institute History Page 2 The gathering will feature a prominent guest Scholarships Page 3 speaker and a program about the history of the Outstanding Interns Page 4 Institute. All former interns and students, commu- Congressional Interns Page 5 nity members, friends of the Institute, and elected Former Interns Page 5 officials are invited to attend. Further details will Featured Internships Page 6 be released in the coming months. We hope to see Hinckley News Page 6 you there! Semester Abroad Page 8 Hinckley Staff Page 9 Hinckley Forums Page 10 From top to bottom: Hinckley interns with newly elected 2003-2004 Interns Page 12 Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.; 1966 Hinckley Summer interns; intern Lieu Tran with Sen. Arlen Specter and Gov. Donors Page 15 Arnold Schwarzenegger; Pres. Ronald Reagan greeting Capital Encounter Page 16 interns; and Hinckley interns campaign for Scott Matheson, Jr. 1 HINCKLEY INSTITUTE OF POLITICS PARTICIPATION History of Hinckley Institute of Politics Scholarship Award Winners Anne Bergstedt Receives John Micah Elggren Receives Robert H. Hinckley founded the Hinckley Institute of Politics in 1965 with the vision to “teach students and Anne Hinckley Scholarship Robert H. Hinckley respect for practical politics and the principle of citizen involvement in government.” Forty years later, Mr. Hinckley’s dream is a reality. Countless students, schoolteachers, and the general public have participated in Graduate Scholarship programs he made possible through the Hinckley Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Higher Education
    ANNUAL NEWSLETTER CONCEPTUAL RENDERING THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION THE HINCKLEY INSTITUTE’S FUTURE HOME PLANNING FOR THE PRICE INTERNATIONAL PAVILION LAUNCH OF THE SAM RICH LECTURE SERIES MALCOLM GLADWELL’S VISION FOR COMPETITIVE STUDENTS OFFICE FOR GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP THE U’S GLOBAL INTERNSHIPS POISED FOR MASSIVE GROWTH 2013 SICILIANO FORUM EDUCATION EXPERTS CONVERGE FOR FULL WEEK table of contents NEW & NOTEWORTHY: 4 HINCKLEY FELLOWS 5 DIGNITARIES 44 HINCKLEY HAPPENINGS: 8 HINCKLEY PRESENCE 10 HINCKLEY FORUMS 8 THE FUTURE OF HIGHER ED: 12 OUR VISION 14 PRICE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING 15 OUR NEW PARTNERSHIP 16 16 SICILIANO FORUM 18 SAM RICH LECTURE SERIES 1414 HINCKLEY TEAM: 20 OUR INTERNS 30 OUR STAFF 31 31 PORTRAIT UNVEILING Contributing Editors: Ellesse S. Balli Rochelle M. Parker Lisa Hawkins Kendahl Melvin Leo Masic Art Director: Ellesse S. Balli MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR Malcolm Gladwell. Dubbed by the seven short years since we KIRK L. JOWERS Time magazine as “one of the 100 launched our global internship most influential people” in the program, we have placed more world and by Foreign Policy as than 400 students in almost 60 a leading “top global thinker,” countries across the globe. It is Gladwell discussed the advantages now celebrated as the best political of disadvantages in a sold-out and humanitarian internship pro- event at Abravanel Hall. gram in the U.S. Culminating this Gladwell’s findings confirmed achievement, this year the Hinck- my belief that it is far better for ley Institute was charged with undergraduates to be a “big fish” overseeing all University of Utah within the University of Utah and campus global internships in part- Hinckley Institute than a “little nership with the new Office for fish” at an Ivy League school.
    [Show full text]
  • KNOW the TRUTH About Utah’S Neighborhood Caucus Elections
    KNOW THE TRUTH about Utah’s Neighborhood Caucus Elections NeighborhoodElections.com Utah’s Neighborhood Caucus Election System ensures that anyone can run for office. Our system levels the playing field for all candidates, not just the famous, wealthy or incumbents! With our current system the best qualified candidates, even with very little money, can win over someone with millions. Please watch this video to learn more about Utah’s Neighborhood Caucus Elections: http://tinyurl.com/NeighborhoodElections Our Neighborhood Elections are under attack. A small, well-connected and elite group of individuals is attempting to use their money and power to neutralize Utah’s election system. Count My Vote (CMV) is an initiative to change from our current Neighborhood Caucus Election system to a Direct Primary. This makes it easier for big money and lobbyists to dominate our elections. Who’s Behind Count My Vote? LaVarr Webb – political consultant, lobbyist, publisher of Utah Policy, and partner at the Exoro Group. Exoro profited $86,250 for work on Orrin Hatch's latest reelection efforts and $25,705 from Bob Bennett's 2010 campaign. As of Jan. 2014, Exoro had been paid $211,233.91 by Count My Vote. Michael O. Leavitt - former governor of Utah and Secretary of Health and Human Services Richard B. McKeown - President and CEO of Leavitt Partners - He has served as Chief of Staff for Michael O. Leavitt at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the E.P.A. Maura Carabello - original owner and managing partner of The Exoro Group. She often works as the lead partner for strategy and management of large-scale political efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Contributions & Related Activity Report
    Political Contributions & Related Activity Report 2012 CARTER BECK JACKIE MACIAS ALAN ALBRIGHT SVP & Counsel VP & General Manager Legal Counsel to WellPAC Medicaid JOHN JESSER VP, Provider Engagement & GLORIA MCCARTHY JOHN WILLEY COC EVP, Enterprise Execution & Sr. Director, Efciency Government Relations 2012 WellPAC DAVID KRETSCHMER WellPAC Treasurer SVP, Treasurer & Chief MIKE MELLOH Investment Ofcer VP, Human Resources TRACY WINN Board of Directors Manager, Public Affairs ANDREW MORRISON DEB MOESSNER WellPAC Assistant Treasurer & SVP, Public Affairs President & General Manager Executive Director WellPAC Chairman KY 1 from the Chairman America’s health care system is in the midst of transformative change, and WellPoint is leading the way by making it easier for consumers to access and use it while improving the health of the people we serve. In this new post-reform era, WellPoint’s Public Affairs function is more important than ever as the government expands its regulatory scope into our key lines of business. By 2015, almost 66 percent of the company’s revenue will be paid either in part or entirely by the federal and state government. For this reason, we continue to play an active role in the political process through our Public Affairs efforts, industry memberships and WellPAC, our political action committee. More than 1,875 WellPoint associates provided voluntary nancial support to WellPAC in 2012. Their generosity allowed our PAC to make contributions of more than $780,000 to federal campaigns and $140,000 to state and local campaigns on both sides of the political aisle in 2012. Our participation in the political process helps us develop good working relationships with Members of Congress, as well as key state legislators, in order to communicate WellPoint’s perspective on a range of issues including the cost and quality of today’s health care, the establishment of insurance exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid.
    [Show full text]
  • C H R I S T O P H E R L
    C H R I S T O P H E R L . P E T E R S O N University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law 383 South University Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 (801)581-6655; [email protected] EMPLOYMENT . John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT, 2012-present o (on public service leave or part-time appointment 2012-2016; 2020) . Financial Services Director and Senior Fellow, Consumer Federation of America, 2018- 2020 . Special Advisor, Office of the Director, United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, D.C, 2015-2016 . Special Advisor, Office of Legal Policy for Personnel and Readiness, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., 2015 . Senior Counsel for Enforcement Policy and Strategy, Office of Enforcement, United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, D.C. 2012-2014 . Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT, 2009-2012 . Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT, 2008-2012 . Visiting Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT, 2007-2008 . Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida, Fredric G. Levin College of Law, Gainesville, FL, 2006-2008 . Assistant Professor of Law, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law, Gainesville, FL, 2003-06 . Consumer Attorney, United States Public Interest Research Group, Washington, D.C., 2002-2003 . Judicial Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Circuit Judge Wade Brorby, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 2001-2002 AWARDS AND HONORS .
    [Show full text]